ShareThis Page
Conor Lamb’s lead grows as special election review continues |

Conor Lamb’s lead grows as special election review continues

Wesley Venteicher
Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review
Conor Lamb (left) and Rick Saccone were mobbed by reporters at their voting precincts Tuesday morning.
Republican state Rep. Rick Saccone and Democrat Conor Lamb, a former federal prosecutor, are running for Congress in a March 13 special election.

Democrat Conor Lamb’s lead over Republican Rick Saccone grew slightly Tuesday as election staffers from the 18th Congressional District’s four counties continued counting batches of remaining votes.

Lamb had a 758-vote lead as of Tuesday afternoon, a week after a special election to replace former U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy in Congress, according to unofficial tallies.

That’s up from the 627-vote lead that Lamb, 33, of Mt. Lebanon, held the day after the special election.

The updated total includes absentee and provisional ballots, the latter of which are used to record votes when there are questions about a voter’s eligibility, along with ballots cast by residents overseas and in the military.

Lamb had 114,097 votes to Saccone’s 113,339 and Libertarian Drew Miller’s 1,381, unofficial tallies showed.

Elections boards in Allegheny, Westmoreland, Washington and Greene counties are scheduled to certify results over the next two weeks.

Elections officials said the counties received few challenges during reviews of outstanding ballots, which drew observers from each candidate’s campaign and attorneys from the U.S. House Committee on House Administration.

Observers challenged 16 of 40 eligible provisional ballots in Allegheny County, according to county spokeswoman Amie Downs. Voters whose ballots were challenged may appear at 10 a.m. Friday in the county’s Elections Office to defend their votes or they will be tossed out.

Downs said Allegheny County’s updated tally Tuesday included 38 military and overseas ballots, a batch of Scott Township votes that weren’t added to electronic tabulations on Election Night and a Mt. Lebanon absentee ballot that hadn’t been counted.

In Washington County, observers said they wanted to challenge two of 65 eligible provisional ballots but didn’t follow up with any formal requests, so no action is being taken on them, Elections Director Larry Spahr said. Spahr said Washington County’s updated totals included 13 military ballots and seven overseas civilian ballots. Spahr didn’t expect any more military or overseas ballots to arrive in the mail Tuesday.

In Westmoreland County, observers didn’t challenge any of the four submitted provisional ballots, said Elections Director Beth Lechman.

Greene County didn’t have any provisional ballots, said Tina Kiger, director of the county’s Office of Elections and Voter Registration.

Kiger said one overseas ballot could still come in.

The Allegheny County Board of Elections is scheduled to meet April 2 to certify official results. Westmoreland County has a final certification meeting scheduled for March 29, Lechman said.

Washington and Greene counties will likely certify final results in the next week or two, according to the counties’ elections directors.

Wes Venteicher is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-380-5676, [email protected] or via Twitter @wesventeicher.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.